Mohd Tasleem and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mohd Tasleem and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Application under Section 528 BNSS allowed; chargesheet dated 09.07.2022, cognizance order dated 24.06.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 1656 of 2025 (State vs Mohd Tasleem and others) under sections 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC quashed in pursuance of the compromise deed dated 27.11.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the chargesheet dated 09.07.2022, the cognizance order dated 24.06.2025 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 1656 of 2025 (State vs Mohd Tasleem and others) under sections 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC, arising out of case crime no. 262 of 2022, are liable to be quashed on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties.

Court's answer

On the settled law laid down by the Apex Court and on perusal of the records, where the parties have entered into a compromise and settled their dispute amicably (here, verified by the Trial Court), the present case is a fit one for this Court to exercise its powers to quash the proceedings as prayed for.

Ratio / Principle

The entire proceedings of Case No. 1656 of 2025 (State vs Mohd Tasleem and others), including the chargesheet dated 09.07.2022 and cognizance order dated 24.06.2025, are quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of criminal proceedings on compromise — Application under Section 528 BNSS by accused persons — Chargesheet dated 09.07.2022 and cognizance order dated 24.06.2025 in Case No. 1656 of 2025 (State vs Mohd Tasleem and others), arising out of case crime no. 262 of 2022, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, under sections 323, 504, 506, 324 IPC — Parties entered into compromise deed dated 27.11.2025, verified by the Trial Court; opposite party nos. 2 and 3 admitted the compromise and raised no objection — Relying on B.S. Joshi, Nikhil Merchant, Manoj Sharma, Gian Singh, Shaifullah and Parbatbhai Ahir, the Court held the case fit for exercise of quashing powers — Entire proceedings quashed; application allowed (Chawan Prakash, J.).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49124 of 2025

Mohd Tasleem And 3 Others

.....Applicant(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hasan Parvej Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aman Kumar

Court No. - 79

HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Heard Mr. Hasan Parvej, learned Counsel for the applicants, Mr. Aman Kumar, learned Counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and learned AGA for the State and perused the records.

The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and to quash the impugned Chargesheet and cognizance order, dated 09.07.2022 & 24.06.2025 l.e. annexure no.1 to the affidavit, and as well as entire proceeding of pending case No. 1656 of 2025 (State vs Mohd Tasleem and others), under sections 323, 504, 506, 324 I.P.C., Police Station Bhojipura, District Bareilly, arising out in case crime no.262 of 2022, in pursuance of the compromise deed dated 27.11.2025 held between the parties, which is pending in the learned court of A.C.J.M./ Additional Civil Judge(C.D.) First, Bareilly, U.P., otherwise applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury. "

Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants and opposite party nos.2 and 3 have compromised the dispute. It is further argued that the said compromise has also been verified by the concerned Trial Court, as such the proceedings against the applicants may be quashed.

Learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 admitted the fact of compromise and stated that he has no objection if the proceeding of the aforesaid case is quashed against the applicants.

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to

NA528 No. 49124 of 2025

2

compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

The law with regards to quashing of a case on the basis of settlement arrived between the parties, is well settled. The Apex Court in the cases of (1) B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another: (2003)4 SCC 675; (2) Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation : (2008) 9 SCC 677; (3) Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others: ( 2008) 16 SCC 1; (4) Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab: (2012) 10 SCC 303; (5) Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another: 2013 (83) ACC 278 and (6) Parbatbhai Ahir@Parbatbhai @ Bhimsinbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of Gujarat and another: (2017) 9 SCC 641 has held that the cases in which the parties have settled their grievances can be quashed.

From perusal of the records and the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject matter, the present case is a good case for exercising powers by this Court to quash the proceedings as prayed for by the applicants.

The entire proceedings of the aforesaid case are hereby quashed .

The present application is allowed .

(Chawan Prakash,J.)

April 22, 2026 Vijay

Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KUMAR SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad